| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1169
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
So i herd that the risk reward policy that makes EVE what it is doesnt apply to afk miners anymore
c/d My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1170
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:So i herd that the risk reward policy that makes EVE what it is doesnt apply to afk miners anymore
c/d nor suicide gankers. I know you arent the brightest spark, so i'll point it out to you
Suicide gankers are WELL aware of rick vs reward...
the risk is the ship that they WILL lose, the REWARD is the smug satisfaction that in maybe an hour, the miner will notice that he isnt in the belt anymore
These changes make it so that even Dolly the Cloned Sheep will be able to happily mine away without even a thought for the possible dangers that might be out there.
The hilarious thing is that the miners that CCP are trying to protect will probably not even notice the changes to the mining barge lineup for weeks My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1170
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
DrSmegma wrote:Suicide gankers were overpowered because of sloppy game mechanics, such as -10 pods being allowed into high sec. Do we need to sit you down with a textbook and explain to you how sec status works? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1171
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
(disclaimer - i HOPE i got these figures wrong)
from my basic grasp on maths, here are the expected shield resists for an Exhumer 5 Hulk pilot, bearing in mind this is a NON COMBAT SHIP
EM - 51.56% EXPL - 89.38% THERM - 68.75% KIN - 85.94%
Changes that make them nigh on invulnerable and all they can do it moan that theres not enough room in the cargohold for more mining crystals
CCP, please stop pandering to these people My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1174
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
The real tragedy here is that instead of CCP reimagining Mining as a Profession, they have instead given the tools to miners to make it much easier to mine for longer periods without any needed input or concentration.
Further relegating mining as the profession of botters and alt accounts My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1174
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote:While entertaining, I could care less about hi-sec. I go to hi-sec every six months to pick up skill books and then I'm gone. If you really want to kill miners, do it in 0.0......the fittings are much more expensive down there. Not to mention the abundance of Orcas and Rorquals. And you might get to tangle REAL ships that fight back for a change. blah blah blah come to nulsec
Anyone else tired of hearing that stupid argument? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1174
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Unit757 wrote:Currently, on SISI, a completely untanked hulk has 12k EHP. Considering the vast majority will more then likely still fit max yield/no tank, I would say they will still be gankable. I'm not a professional ganker though, so I don't know.
Edit - Sorry, I had low-grade slaves plugged in when I got that number, so it would actually less EHP.
I didnt think the changes had made their way to SiSI yet
Check to see if the other exhumers have bonuses for Ice and Mercoxit, etc My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1174
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:50:00 -
[8] - Quote
strange... i thought the stats were the only thing released, as i had my corpmate check the ships on SiSi only a few days ago. My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1179
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
Danfen Fenix wrote:Wait, the dev blog about this has been up for weeks... Why has the complaining only started now ?  Because of Herr Wilkus
he is great at startign threads like this :3 My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1179
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:YAWNS politely. NERF RED JACKETS! My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender). Well, as long as you get the balance right i dont think anybody can seriously complain...
As it stands, we have cause for concern.
Just one example - Why should an Exhumer get a greater shield resists per level bonus than a HIC? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:43:00 -
[12] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:As a Ice miner I welcome the update, as finally CCP recognizes you should have some ability to not instantly die the minute anything shoots you.
All I see is miles upon miles of butthurt, with no end in sight.
Would you pvp in an untanked ship?
Would you run a mission in an untanked ship?
What makes miners so special that they think they dont need to fit a tank? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:gfldex wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted. How do you plan to scale the HP of a freighter with the value of it's cargo? If you don't plan to do that then please tell me why miners are immune from profit seeking highsec pirates but haulers are not. I'm in your forumz asking rhetorical questions. the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter? If you are doing it right, the cargo should suffice My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:52:00 -
[14] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:no because you're intending to go in to a combat situation, tanks are for combat. mining ships are not a combat ship. Replace the words 'DPS' with 'isk per hour'
I dont fit a mission boat for MAX dps at expense of my survivability, because if i did my shiny billion isk faction ship would explode in no time at all
yet miners fit their mining barges and exhumers for 'max mining' at expense of their survivability in the face of warnings from CCP, countless threads about sucide gankers, eternal hulkageddon, etc
then they innevitably die, and point the finger at anybody but themselves
Miners as a collective group have clearly shown that they are incapable of looking after themselves, and so CCP has stepped in to hold their hand and protect them as if they were an endangered species My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
Also i'd like to throw into the mix that the cost of an Exhumer can NEVER be used to justify any buff to its EHP
CCP have 'promised' to tackle the Technetium problem, and as Technetium is like 70% of the price of a Hulk, these T2 ships will not likely remain the price they are now once the tech problem is dealt with My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:02:00 -
[16] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:no, you fit your ship to do missions as efficiently as possible. that's the same thing as fitting to mine as efficiently as possible.
i have no problem with hulkaggedon, if you want to gank me i think you're perfectly entitled to do so; provided you actually have to put some effort in to it and not just use ships costing less than the contents of my jetcan. the tears from the gankers about this buff is the fact that they're no longer able to do it in throwaway ships and have to put some kind of investment in to ******* up some one's day. hard life isn't it?
So you are happy that CCP are effectively throwing ship balance out of the window to 'protect' hisec miners?
Of course, i shouldnt really expect people to care about game balance when you just chew on rocks for a living My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1183
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:07:00 -
[17] - Quote
Why fit a damage control when you can just get CCP to change the stats of the ship
amirite? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1183
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:07:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok. When you stop attributing survivability to ship cost we might take you seriously My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1185
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:29:00 -
[19] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok. When you stop attributing survivability to ship cost we might take you seriously a ship destroying another ship who's modules are worth more than the ganker's ship in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it. CCP shouldnt be in the business of saying what they do and dont want us to do. Their only responsibility is to maintain a fair and balanced sandbox for us to decide what we should be doing. Profitability of ganks is entirely situational.
Now, i can see how it could be argued that the current 'status quo' is biased against the miner, and as such I am not against changes to the stats of ships miners would use. (they buffed destroyers a bit, so i dont mind a mining barge buff in equal measure)
My problem is the current proposed stats, as they currenty are, pushes the balance far to much the other way.
Also, for all our sakes, stop using the 'my ship is more expensive than yours, you shouldnt be able to kill me' argument, it doesnt wash, this isnt WoW Battlegrounds or diablo3. My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does.

are you really that dumb? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:52:00 -
[21] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does.  are you really that dumb? really? because ganking a 17k cargo space hulk for it's cargo means using a ship worth less than about 2-3m even a cheap destroyer would struggle to find profit in the dropped cargo. unless of course there was a source of income from that suicide gank other than the cargo.... I think you need to realise that suiciders gank people FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON AT ONCE
jeez My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:10:00 -
[22] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does.  are you really that dumb? really? because ganking a 17k cargo space hulk for it's cargo means using a ship worth less than about 2-3m even a cheap destroyer would struggle to find profit in the dropped cargo. unless of course there was a source of income from that suicide gank other than the cargo.... I think you need to realise that suiciders gank people FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON AT ONCE jeez what does people's reasons for ganking have to do with it's profitability? are you really that dumb? Reasons to suicide a ship for: THE LULZ THE CARGO THE MODS THE SALVAGE THE TEARS ANNOYING A SHIPTOASTER FROM THE FORUMS
I really dont know what you are trying to argue anymore, other than your expensive ship shouldnt ever die to anything with a lower value? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:36:00 -
[23] - Quote
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8131/herrwhenidowilkuss.png My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:48:00 -
[24] - Quote
Xercodo wrote:A) Can you provide ANY other case where a destroyer can suicide gank a ship of similar value besides a hulk? pretty much any untanked T2 cruiser My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:53:00 -
[25] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:You are trying very hard to make this a bigger issue than it really is. Adapting the game to fit the miners instead of adapting the miners to fit the game is acceptable for you? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1187
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:21:00 -
[26] - Quote
I found a way of summing up the entire 'buff the hulk' brigade
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/23999039.jpg My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1190
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:40:00 -
[27] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Nobody has a monopoly on building Hulks. True, only a measly 70% of the price of a Hulk is from Technetium My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1190
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:42:00 -
[28] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Nobody has a monopoly on building Hulks. True, only a measly 70% of the price of a Hulk is from Technetium which got nerfed now what Minecraft? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1201
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:38:00 -
[29] - Quote
how is this thread over 100 pages?
jeez guys My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1201
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:43:00 -
[30] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank.
Go look up the tier 3 battlecruisers
just TRY and fit a tank to those
You can try, but its a fairly pointless exercise My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:03:00 -
[31] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender). Well, as long as you get the balance right i dont think anybody can seriously complain... As it stands, we have cause for concern. Just one example - Why should an Exhumer get a greater shield resists per level bonus than a HIC? edit - its as if the stats have been dreamed up by a DEV thats been suicide ganked on his alt account one too many times So, did anyone answer this question regarding Exhumer resists vs HIC resists i posed the other day?
I'd really like to know My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:25:00 -
[32] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:La Nariz wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender). Well, as long as you get the balance right i dont think anybody can seriously complain... As it stands, we have cause for concern. Just one example - Why should an Exhumer get a greater shield resists per level bonus than a HIC? edit - its as if the stats have been dreamed up by a DEV thats been suicide ganked on his alt account one too many times So, did anyone answer this question regarding Exhumer resists vs HIC resists i posed the other day? I'd really like to know I'd like to know this as well. All Exhumers have T1 resists on SiSi.
I remember it being stated they get a 7.5% bonus to shield resists per level, is this still in place? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:00:00 -
[33] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:I remember it being stated they get a 7.5% bonus to shield resists per level, is this still in place? 5% and base resists are T1. So that's nowhere near T2 ships.
Would you mind posting the current resist profile and ship bonuses to resists here for those of us not up with the latest SiSi build? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:36:00 -
[34] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Would you mind posting the current resist profile and ship bonuses to resists here for those of us not up with the latest SiSi build? You don't know what T1 resists are? Hulk shields: 0/50/40/20 Hulk armor: 60/10/25/35 Shield resists are same for all exhumers and mining barges. I find it peculiar that you act like t1 resists on a t2 ship is a normal thing?
plus - http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Hulk
you can check there for the current tranqulity hulk details, and it clearly has a t2 resist profile.
I hope this explains my apparent surprise that they lowered the resist profile
But... maybe you are doing it all wrong because to my eyes you are posting the resistance profile of a Covetor My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:42:00 -
[35] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why do gankers have LOLhisecgankalts? Because i like flying around hisec without being shot at by everything
I have a -10 toon that does a job and i do not plan on sending it to Doomheim anytime soon My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:59:00 -
[36] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why do gankers have LOLhisecgankalts? Because i like flying around hisec without being shot at by everything And isn't this the epitome of carebearing? "I want to do all sorts of stuff but not suffer any of the consequences, in the Game Of Consequences". Not at all, I am well aware of the consequences, and i deal with them on the character that i earn them on. My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:11:00 -
[37] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:What consequence do you endure by pod warping from station to Orca, reshipping, going in blowing and insta warping to safe again? Well, if thats how you think its done, why dont you scan down the POD in space and come kill me?
Negative ten toons are flashy red and able to be shot at by anyone, thats the consequence
deal with it My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:16:00 -
[38] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:What consequence do you endure by pod warping from station to Orca, reshipping, going in blowing and insta warping to safe again? Well, if thats how you think its done, why dont you scan down the POD in space and come kill me? Negative ten toons are flashy red and able to be shot at by anyone, thats the consequence deal with it If they are in a ship. Shooting the pod isn't allowed.
-10's in a pod can be shot on sight My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:20:00 -
[39] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:it's not like real combat where you know stuff happens soon. You dont seem to be dealing with it very well My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:45:00 -
[40] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I am not going to sit in a belt for 8 hours awaiting for the next Buddha to come. What for anyway? To kill a 2M ship that was mean to explode anyway and (since I don't use cheesy alts to circumvent consequences) get kill rights on me? I'm not circumventing any consequences by doing that.
Are you saying every activity you do in EVE Online you do with the same character? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
| |
|